1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Stop with the trolling. This story is all across the media. Pro-Washington? Give it a rest.

Many of the S. Koreans who voice opposition to THAAD do so purely out of fear that the radar associated with the system will make the area in which it's sited - i.e., their back yards - a target.  Again, it's fear talking, and the very fear fatboy is playing on.   It's wartime - there is only an armistice in effect - and fatboy certainly hasn't resisted his psychotic urges for blatant acts of war.   The U.S. was and is a belligerent in this war, has a dog in this fight and has a say in what happens WRT S. Korean defense.  What it's not about is one faction of S. Korean protesters worried about their farms being bombed.

 

China doesn't like the THAAD radar either because it's powerful and they feel poses a threat to the efficacy of THEIR offensive missile systems as well.  Well, too bad.  They COULD have been a lot more forthcoming in getting fatboy to back down from his nuclear programs, and they chose not to (partly because their own aggression in the S. China Sea put them in a weak position to...).  Their choices; THAAD is a direct consequence.

 

War is scary.  It's good that it is, otherwise there'd be more of the damnable things.   It's bad that electing politicians who just kicked the can down the road has gotten us into this position and really bad that fatboy was foolishly appeased and facilitated, thus bringing us as close as we now are to war.  Those living in such morbid fear now should have given it more serious thought back when fatboy started all this and the danger would have been more manageable.  It's kind o' late to be crying about it now.   But if you're going to cry, the thing to cry over is your own neglect.

And here is an article from the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emanuel-pastreich/the-unbearable-sadness-of_b_11051426.html

Okay, quote from the article  "In fact, it seems as if the decision to deploy was made at the highest level with minimal consultation with the wide range of experts on security who have harbored doubts about the effectiveness of missile defense. The project seems to be driven more by the potential for profit, and recalls the tragic consequences of the political machinations of multinational arms dealers one hundred years ago that drew the world into World War One."

Okay, the article is trying to say, that THAAD is not going to be highly effective, especially in South Korea's case. THAAD is designed to knock out high altitude missiles, even this claim is in doubt. What is certain, is that THAAD is useless against artillery shells. And Seoul is certainly within range of North Korea's artillery, bearing in mind that North Korea can put whatever stuff into the artillery shells.


And below is a picture of protesters.



What's the point of THAAD in South Korea ? And it costs money, it isn't for free.

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

What's the point of THAAD in South Korea ? And it costs money, it isn't for free.

I thought you had made the point you were trying to make and yet you continue

@tonbridgebrit

 

Quoting biased opinion pieces is not much of an argument. Author's objectivity can be questioned just by these pearls of "wisdom": "policies like the deployment of THAAD that are issued from Washington D.C. think tanks wallowing in corruption." Doubt that any such policy was "issued" from a a Washington DC think tank, or that the corruption allegation is much substantiated. Same goes for placing the onus of any prospect of peaceful resolution on the US - while totally ignoring NK.

 

And as far as I'm aware, no - NK cannot put "whatever stuff into the artillery shells" - not a nuclear warhead anyway. In a way, this was a sloppy argument, as it implies that NK is a clear and present danger regardless of it's missile program.

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And here is an article from the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emanuel-pastreich/the-unbearable-sadness-of_b_11051426.html

Okay, quote from the article  "In fact, it seems as if the decision to deploy was made at the highest level with minimal consultation with the wide range of experts on security who have harbored doubts about the effectiveness of missile defense. The project seems to be driven more by the potential for profit, and recalls the tragic consequences of the political machinations of multinational arms dealers one hundred years ago that drew the world into World War One."

Okay, the article is trying to say, that THAAD is not going to be highly effective, especially in South Korea's case. THAAD is designed to knock out high altitude missiles, even this claim is in doubt. What is certain, is that THAAD is useless against artillery shells. And Seoul is certainly within range of North Korea's artillery, bearing in mind that North Korea can put whatever stuff into the artillery shells.


And below is a picture of protesters.



What's the point of THAAD in South Korea ? And it costs money, it isn't for free.

That's an opinion piece from somebody who's not an expert on weapons.